Agenda item - BH2013/03477 - 15 Eaton Place, Brighton - Listed Building Consent

External alterations including installation of metal staircase with glass balustrading and metal handrail, replacement of timber casement window with door at first floor level to the rear.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

External alterations including installation of metal staircase with glass balustrading and metal handrail, replacement of timber casement window with door at first floor level to the rear.

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, introduced the report and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings in relation to BH2013/03477 for listed building consent and BH2013/03478 for householder planning permission and stated that the application property was divided into a flat and maisonette and was Grade II listed. Permission was sought for the installation of an external staircase and the replacement of a window with a door for access. The main considerations related to the character of the listed building and the impact on neighbour amenity and the wider conservation area. Two previous applications had been refused for similar schemes; both for reasons relating to the appropriateness of the scheme and the harm to the character of the listed building. The applicant had sought to address these reasons for refusal; whilst the relocation of the steps would retain the rear elevations there would still be an adverse impact on the listed building and conservation area and the staircase would reduce the basement flat amenity and be unneighbourly and overbearing. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speakers and Questions

(2)                   Councillor Mitchell spoke in support of the application in her capacity as the local Ward Councillor; she stated that the application sought to allow the applicant access their rear garden. The applicant had carefully considered the reasons for refusal and sought to sensitively design the staircase; during the application process 14 neighbours had been consulted and none had raised objections, and it was felt the objection from the Heritage Team was in relation to the principle of the staircase. It was hoped that some flexibility could be exercised to give access to the garden.

(3)                   In response to Councillor Hamilton it was confirmed by Councillor Mitchell that the balcony was obscured from most of the neighbours, and was only visible from one other rear garden.

(4)                   In was confirmed by Councillor Mitchell in response to Councillor Carden that the main access to the building was from the front and the staircase was not intended as a fire escape.

(5)                   Mr Lipton spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the applicant; he stated that that he had lived in the property since 1971 and he owned both the maisonette and the flat – renting out the latter. Currently the rear garden was only accessible through the ground floor flat, and this was now the third attempt on their part to gain access to the garden from their home. The staircase would be fully reversible and only visible from two other back gardens. It was felt that the outlook from the basement was unchanged by the application and the glass balustrades sought to mitigate this. The applicant had taken efforts to preserve the original character of the house and prevent it being further subdivided into flats; currently they were being denied access to their rear garden.

(6)                   In response to Councillor Hamilton it was confirmed by Mr Lipton that the garden could only be accessed through the ground floor flat.

(7)                   In response to Councillor Davey it was explained by Mr Lipton that the ground floor had only recently been let out and there had been periodic access to the garden since they had purchased the property.

Questions for Officers

(8)                   In response to Councillor Hamilton it was explained that there had been an application for a basement extension in 2008 and 2009, but it was not known if this included the glazed roof that would be overlooked. In relation to the glass roof it was also confirmed for Councillor Gilbey that there would be inter looking created from it and the staircase.

(9)                   In response to Councillor Jones it was stated that Officers could not say for certain under what circumstances an application for access to the rear garden could be acceptable, but it seemed unlikely this type of scheme could be achieved given the planning history.

(10)               In response to Councillor Gilbey it was explained that the removal of the original masonry to create the new door would be contrary to the guidance contained in SPD09.

Debates and Decision Making Process

(11)               Councillor Wells stated that he did not object to the application, and he did not feel it was incongruous, and could only be viewed from one other property; for these reasons he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(12)               Councillor Hyde stated that she understood the applicant’s desire to access their garden, but she agreed with the comments raised by the Heritage Officer, and had concern in relation to the overlooking into basement flat; with all this in mind she would support the Officer recommendation.

(13)               Councillor Hamilton noted that he was less concerned as the application related to the rear of the building, and he did not feel it would cause harm or was unsightly. For these reasons he would not support the Officer recommendation.

(14)               Councillor Mac Cafferty noted that he agreed with Councillor Hyde, and noted that whilst there were other examples these did not have planning history; he added that the Committee should not be considering the harm that had already been caused elsewhere but the harm that this specific application would cause.

(15)               Mr Gowans noted that the application had not been considered by the CAG, but drew the Committee’s attention to the listing as the key issue.

(16)               A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to refuse consent was carried on a vote of 8 in favour and 3 against.

141.5    RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and resolved to REFUSE listed building consent fort the reasons set out below:

Reason for Refusal

              i.           The proposal, by reason of design, scale and detailing would constitute an incongruous and uncharacteristic element to the rear, resulting in a detrimental impact to the character and appearance to the listed building and the wider listed terrace. The proposal is contrary to policy HE1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Informatives:

              i.           In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SS1 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (submission document) the approach to making a decision on this planning application has been to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Local Planning Authority seeks to approve planning applications which are for sustainable development where possible.

              Note: Councillor Duncan was not present during the meeting.